Open Class Super-Ship from Windward Performance

On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:29:52 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
type certified or kit built?

Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental
glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially
unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and
transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common
composite materials.

Bob,

Why not LSA?

Marc

On Aug 3, 10:00*am, wrote:

Why not LSA?

Marc, that's a good question. I think that by the time you develop an
aircraft that meets the LSA requirements, the extra effort to go to
Part 23 TC is not all that great. And the benefits are much greater
gross weight and no smoke-and-mirrors VNE. But I could be convinced
otherwise.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Friday, August 3, 2012 11:29:52 AM UTC-5, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony wrote: how affordable is affordable? It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments, removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer. type certified or kit built? Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common composite materials. There is also the ethical concern of carrying people who have not necessarily made an informed decision to ride in a non-type- certificated aircraft. I think that they deserve an aircraft that has been tested to a higher standard than the typical kit aircraft. going to be opening an engineering office in Wichita??? I hadn't thought of that. Didn't they used to make airplanes there? Thanks, Bob K.

Cool and Cool

You could always put a bid in for Hawker Beechcraft...get a nice 7000 ft runway, some big ovens for composites curing, and plenty of employees

On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:29:52 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony wrote: how affordable is affordable? It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments, removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer. type certified or kit built? Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common composite materials. There is also the ethical concern of carrying people who have not necessarily made an informed decision to ride in a non-type- certificated aircraft. I think that they deserve an aircraft that has been tested to a higher standard than the typical kit aircraft. going to be opening an engineering office in Wichita??? I hadn't thought of that. Didn't they used to make airplanes there? Thanks, Bob K.

Just because it is a kit aircarft, Homebuilt, dose'nt mean it has not been tested. All of Windwards aircraft are tested to part 21 standards and beyond the reason for not certifing in the Standard Catagory is cost. With this thinking Bob there must be a lot of unethical people out there flying experimental aircraft, or the EAA is unethical, or building your own airplane is unethical, or you must be a left wing tree hugger to be flying that, what an electric airplane, you fly an experimental aircraft you must be a socialist.

John

On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:14:15 PM UTC-5, (unknown) wrote:
On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:29:52 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote: On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony wrote: how affordable is affordable? It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments, removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer. type certified or kit built? Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common composite materials. There is also the ethical concern of carrying people who have not necessarily made an informed decision to ride in a non-type- certificated aircraft. I think that they deserve an aircraft that has been tested to a higher standard than the typical kit aircraft. going to be opening an engineering office in Wichita??? I hadn't thought of that. Didn't they used to make airplanes there? Thanks, Bob K. Just because it is a kit aircarft, Homebuilt, dose'nt mean it has not been tested. All of Windwards aircraft are tested to part 21 standards and beyond the reason for not certifing in the Standard Catagory is cost. With this thinking Bob there must be a lot of unethical people out there flying experimental aircraft, or the EAA is unethical, or building your own airplane is unethical, or you must be a left wing tree hugger to be flying that, what an electric airplane, you fly an experimental aircraft you must be a socialist. John

interesting...

I agree with Bob though, for a 2 seater to be successful as a trainer it really needs to be type certified, for many reasons including the ones that Bob points out.

On Aug 3, 11:14*am, wrote:

* Just because it is a kit aircarft, Homebuilt, dose'nt mean it has not been tested...

Oh, yeah, I get that. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt:

http://hpaircraft.com/hp-24/update_10_dec_11.htm

All of Windwards aircraft are tested to part 21 standards and
beyond the reason for not certifing in the Standard Catagory is cost.
With this thinking Bob there must be a lot of unethical people
out there flying experimental aircraft, or the EAA is unethical, or
building your own airplane is unethical, or you must be a left wing
tree hugger to be flying that, what an electric airplane, you fly an
experimental aircraft you must be a socialist.

That last run-on sentence makes the grammar a bit difficult to parse,
but I'll take a crack at it:

I didn't mean that those who develop, build, and operate non-
certificated multiplace aircraft are unethical. In fact, I have been
one of those people, and probably will be again.

I just happen to think that developing and testing multiplace aircraft
to a higher standard than single place aircraft has value for ethical
reasons that I have already stated: They often carry people who have
not made, and are perhaps not qualified to make, an informed decision
to ride in the machine. Therefore, the designer and builder hold an
increased obligation to protect the uninformed from the possible
consequences of such activity. Also, I happen to think, for a variety
of reasons outside the scope of this particular discussion, that this
is a bit more important for sailplanes than for powered aircraft.

I think that once you execute on this obligation to a degree
commensurate with what is at stake, you are about 90% of the way to
certification, so you might as well finish it off.

I have incredible respect for those who fought for and won our
privilege of building and operating amateur-built aircraft, and I have
a great deal of respect for the responsibility that is bound to it. I
think that the EAA is doing a good job of providing guidance and
protection for those who choose to exercise this privilege.

However, there have indeed been a few unethical people in experimental
aviation, and the sport has suffered mightily for it on occasion.
Folks who took deposits and returned only empty promises. Folks who
designed structurally inadequate aircraft that broke before even
reaching limit load. I intend to avoid, by whatever practical means,
being one of those people.

And, for the record, I am indeed a tree-hugging liberal, though not in
the strictest sense a socialist. More along the lines of a social
engineering-ist.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

On Friday, August 3, 2012 10:29:52 AM UTC-6, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony wrote:

It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes
convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments,
removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer.

I would very seriously consider a covered trailer - at least as an option. If the glider is made extremely easy to rig, many will consider a covered trailer a hangar on wheels and rig every day they fly. I do this with CAP K-21's and find it no worse than fitting a glider into a hangar. Just a bit of thought on rigging ease would make it a no-brainer.

A side-by-side fuselage could easily accommodate two main wheels making the fuselage self-stable thus eliminating the ubiquitous fuselage dolly and jack-able ramp. A hard points with 1/2-13 threaded holes at each wing panel CG allows a compact one-man rigging dolly's no bigger than a wing stand. The hard points also serve as tie-down points. A one-wheel wing tip dolly would allow walking the wings out of the trailer without lifting. As long as the tailplane is easily handled by one person, you have a easy one-man rig-able glider.

This is a particularly fitting time to consider producing a new 2-seat trainer. I think the market in the US is at least 400 gliders considering the demise of the L-13's and the rapidly shrinking Schweizer fleet combined with (hopefully) resumed growth in soaring. Internationally, the ASK-21 is the most popular trainer which, while excellent, is a 1980 design. The world market could be in excess of 1000 units

On Aug 3, 12:50*pm, Bill D wrote:

I would very seriously consider a covered trailer - at least as an option..

Absolutely! It's just that the covered trailer wouldn't be part of the
base package. The customer can convert the open trailer to covered by
skinning the sides and assembling the optional clamshell top.

If the glider is made extremely easy to rig, many will consider a covered
trailer a hangar on wheels and rig every day they fly...

That is as intended. The controls will be auto-connecting, too.

A side-by-side fuselage could easily accommodate two main wheels
making the fuselage self-stable thus eliminating the ubiquitous fuselage
dolly and jack-able ramp...

I'd have to take that under advisement. It would give this glider
different touchdown handling, especially in crosswinds. That's not bad
in and of itself, but may prove an obstacle to transition training to
single-place gliders or higher-performance twins.

*A hard points with 1/2-13 threaded holes at each wing panel CG allows a
compact one-man rigging dolly's no bigger than a wing stand. *The hard points
also serve as tie-down points. A one-wheel wing tip dolly would allow walking
the wings out of the trailer without lifting. As long as the tailplane is easily
handled by one person, you have a easy one-man rig-able glider.

That's a good idea. Threaded hard points could be used for trailering
fixtures as well. Glider finishes, even urethanes, can bubble when
exposed to moisture trapped between dollies and the paint.

This is a particularly fitting time to consider producing a new 2-seat trainer.
*I think the market in the US is at least 400 gliders considering the demise
of the L-13's and the rapidly shrinking Schweizer fleet combined with
(hopefully) resumed growth in soaring. Internationally, the ASK-21 is the
most popular trainer which, while excellent, is a 1980 design. *The world
market could be in excess of 1000 units

I hope that is so. I think I would have to sell at least 150 units to
amortize the tooling and development. At today's rate of US training
glider consumption, that is still a tough proposition. So this would
have to be a good glider for joyrides and sightseeing as well.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com
https://www.facebook.com/AuroraTrainingSailplaneProject